SC refuses to interfere with Rs 14.49 crore award to Sourav Ganguly
text_fields
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a plea challenging a Calcutta High Court order that upheld an arbitral award of Rs 14.49 crore, along with 12 per cent annual interest and Rs 50 lakh in costs, in favour of former Indian cricketer Sourav Ganguly in a dispute over his Player Representation Agreement (PRA).
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by Percept Talent Management Ltd and Percept D’Mark (India) Pvt Ltd against the Calcutta High Court judgment.
In its April 16, 2026 judgment, the High Court had dismissed an appeal filed by the Percept entities under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and declined to interfere with the arbitral award in Ganguly’s favour.
The award granted Ganguly Rs 14.49 crore, with interest at 12 per cent per annum from November 21, 2007, until the date of the award, and further interest at the same rate thereafter until realisation. The arbitral tribunal had also awarded Rs 50 lakh towards costs.
The dispute arose from a Player Representation Agreement entered into by Ganguly with Percept D’Mark in October 2003, under which the company was appointed as his sole and exclusive manager and agent.
The dispute primarily concerned Percept’s termination of the agreement in November 2007. The company had sought to terminate the agreement after Ganguly had been out of the Indian team for more than six months in 2006, although he was subsequently re-selected.
The Calcutta High Court noted that the event which allegedly gave Percept the right to terminate the agreement had occurred in August 2006, while Ganguly was re-selected as a regular Indian player in November 2006.
However, the agreement was purportedly terminated only in November 2007.
The High Court observed that there was no document or communication from Percept during the relevant period indicating that it had contemplated terminating the agreement. It noted that the termination came 16 months after the event that allegedly gave rise to the right of termination and 12 months after Ganguly’s re-selection.
The court held that the agreement had been terminated after the event giving rise to the alleged right of termination had “long surpassed and no longer existed”. It further observed that the words “forthwith” and “at any time” could not be interpreted as allowing the right to be exercised indefinitely and that it had to be exercised within a reasonable proximity of the relevant event.
The High Court also recorded that Percept had not produced any document or communication showing that it had expressed a desire to terminate the agreement immediately after the occurrence of the relevant event.
Subsequently, a Division Bench comprising Justices Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi held that the Single Judge had neither exceeded nor failed to exercise jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
The Division Bench dismissed Percept’s appeal without any order as to costs.
The Supreme Court has now dismissed Percept’s challenge to the High Court order.
With IANS inputs